User talk:SteveBaker

NOTE: I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages. I find this ludicrous and unintuitive, and would much prefer to follow Wikipedia's recommendations (see How to keep a two-way conversation readable). Conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued there. If a user replies to a post of mine on this page, I will either cut/paste the text to their page, or (more likely) copy/paste from their page to this one and continue it here.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bike-engined car, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Pneumatic non-return valve a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Pneumatic non-return valves KTo288 (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, Steve. There are two issues here, I only addressed adding to the original recording, e.g. in a conference room with high noise, and I said it would be hard to add to it due to not having a clear patch of room noise from then. So you're saying it's trivial to add in extra audio into a low-quality recording of people's conversations? (to extract room noise and then splice it in without any noticeable clips or change that makes it obvious the person was added in post-production?) For my response I assumed the person would just be willing to read their lines - can they then be dubbed in easily into a high-noise actual recording of an actual conversatoin, with constantly varying background noise?

Because in this case the background noise might be really obvious as well (for example if anything else is happening), and repeating a section, or cutting abruptly or anything else, might be really obvious. . . .

I ask here because the person used 'impersonation' and I think that's wrong on its face. (It's often a crime.) On balance I would say the OP's intentions are not pure, but in any case I would like to 'keep them honest' by not posting details about how to do it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would assume that 'clean' recordings of the extra person's words would be placed into existing lulls in the existing conversation - not spliced into them...but even so, resynthesising noise is easily done...I do it a lot in two dimensions when I use a resynthesis algorithm to remove objects from a photograph and resynthesise new data to fill in the gap....I'm sure it can be done even more easily in one dimension for audio. So you'd introduce your gap, resynthesise the room noise to fill it - then add the synthetic voice over the top.

As for bad intentions from the OP. First, here on Wikipedia, we're required to Assume Good Faith - so unless we have evidence to the contrary, I assume that our questioner is asking this for reasons of good, not ill. For example (s)he might be making an amateur movie about some fictional event and want to do what they did in Forrest Gump where their hero is inserted into a section of archival footage. I don't know - but I am required to assume good faith. Secondly, wikipedia isn't censored. So we are able to discuss this kind of thing with appropriate scientific/encyclopeadic detachment.

same guy here. Sure, but he used the word 'impersonation'. Hard to find any honest context someone would use this word in. (they would just use a different word.) It sounds like a criminal category, and is one, or at least a word for something that is wrong on its face. If he hadn't used the word 'impersonation' I wouldn't have thought twice about it. it just seems wrong, in any context. (Because impersonation is really about the idea of identity theft. He even gave us the context, where someone would be impersonated and put into a conversation.) 82.131.223.148 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No! Impersonators exist for humor and to have historical figures appear in modern movies. The actor who plays Alan Turing in the new "The Imitation Game" movie is "impersonating" him...no horrible nastiness there. As I said, we're REQUIRED to assume good faith here at Wikipedia...it's not just a suggestion or a hint...it's a rule. SteveBaker (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

there is a sense of 'impersonations' like standup comics do, but I don't think anybody says the actor playing Alan Turing is 'impersonating' him - we just don't use the word in this sense. (Except in an impromptu over-the-top impersonation sense.) I've never heard anyone use it the way OP did, have you?

Okay, so I just reread the OP. It's not even about the word impersonation. I am extremely bothered by this: "Can the voice of one person be recorded, analyzed and then be used(dubbed)to show that this person was present in a conversation between others?"

it is written legalistically (to show) - i.e. to prove. Now, assuming good faith I can imagine that the Defense is asking whether this is possible (a possible defense against someone actually participating in a conversation.) If so I would answer in the affirmative or negative, but without enabling this behavior. But it looks really like someone is asking for a way to have this done. Just because we assume good faith doesn't mean we don't also keep people honest. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I get the pixture that when you said I should of said "intents and purposes" you thought I didn't know what I was doing. I come acrost that a lot. Merry Christmas. μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason is because Callisto in Xena Warrior Princess is from there and I'm going to a Xena Conventrion in four weeks and I wanna show people a postcard of the real Kirra. Venustar84 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steve, reading through the discussions on the talk page again, I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this:

“

Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice [or perhaps a request for opinion]. We do not give this type of advice [links to disclaimer and guidelines, header, etc], but our users will be allowed to post citations/links to informational references. We hope this information might be useful to you. If you further pursue advice here, this question may be removed.

”

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

tl;dr: No, I wouldn't support it. I think that's a step too far - and a step too soon - and a huge distraction from the problems at hand.

A STEP TOO FAR

The medical and legal disclaimer is there for a reason. We have to protect our less smart responders (let's not name names) from crossing the line into diagnosis, prognosis and treatment - because that's illegal in Florida, where the Wikipedia servers are housed and practicing medicine without a license is illegal. That could result in lawsuits against individuals and against Wikipedia as a whole. That's quite aside from the moral/ethical issues. Wikipedia (rightly or wrongly) speaks with a voice of authority. We'd like people to see the reference desk as a place to get solid answers that can be relied upon...but with medical advice, we're trying to scream "NO! IGNORE EVERYTHING WE SAY! WE'RE NOT DOCTORS!"

If someone asks "I get this horrible pain in my chest several times a day after meals - what should I do?" - and we put out your disclaimer - then along comes an editor who carefully follows your guidelines and answers only with a slew of links to scholarly articles about indigestion and antacids - then the OP takes antacids and then drops dead of a heart attack - then I hope you'd agree that this would be a major problem. Even though we'd only pointed to articles relevant to chest pains related to mealtimes, by choosing one article versus another, we'd have implied a diagnosis and a treatment - and that's illegal and immoral. We can't provide an accurate and comprehensive list of all of the articles relating to chest pain because we're not doctors and we could easily miss some rare condition that overwhelmingly affects male Icelanders that a doctor would only have noticed in person. Even if we were doctors, forming any kind of judgement about the cause of our OP's ills is tough without meeting him in person and interrogating him about other symptoms, life history, etc.

So your proposed guidelines don't prevent the kinds of problems that relaxing the medical advice rules could potentially result in...and certainly would open us up to serious criticism and possibly legal difficulties that might extend beyond an individual editor. Suppose someone here does something like that and the lawyers decide to sue all of the reference desk regulars for negligently failing to prevent them from posting...noting our conversations about relaxing the rules....noting this very conversation we're having at this precise moment...we might all end up in jail for accessory to manslaughter.

HELL NO!

I would STRONGLY oppose such a measure...even on a trial basis...no matter how wrapped in caveats and disclaimers...I'd have to fight it tooth and nail. By choosing which medical articles to link to, we would be implying a diagnosis and/or a treatment and/or a prognosis...and that's contrary to Kainaws' criterion.

A STEP TOO SOON

Aside from the legal and ethical issues...On another level. We do need reform...we need to stop this constant bickering over what to hat and what to delete and how to scold our OP's and respondents. We need some solid guidelines. Pushing that reform through is going to be very tough. If you try to use this as a gateway to major change to the most controversial part of all, then you'll derail the entire thing. I would personally have to strongly oppose someone (you) who would appear to be on the side of the very reform I'm trying to push through.

My opinion is this: PLEASE let's get the basic reform going - lets lay out the grand plan for how we categorize problem posts - and what we do about each category. Let's have the system run for a while and get people used to it. When that's done, it'll be much easier to have a more nuanced view of medical/legal questions. But I really don't want to derail the discussions with a major bombshell such as you're proposing.

Besides, you stand zero chance of getting consensus. We've been through the medical/legal ban thing enough times already - and there is NEVER consensus to change the rules. There are enough people who, like me, feel that our present stance is about right who'll make sure that the status quo won't change. What we mainly need is more uniform and consistent responses rather than a random collection of hatting/deleting/ignoring/scorning/lambasting/joking/arguing that we typically get when this happens.

Well, I think you're misunderstanding the spirit. What I'm proposing isn't actually even a change to our guidelines. I've read them carefully. The guidelines say we can't give advice, but they actually recommend not removing advice seeking questions. Upon reflection, I agree with you in the sense that I don't think it is good to say in the template that people are allowed to post after the template had been posted. The main point is that by using a template, we can avoid lots of the debate on closing/hatting, and a template is less disruptive and easier to undo than hatting or deleting. BTW, I totally agree with you on the ethical considerations, and we shouldn't even imply diagnoses. As for your reform idea- it's mostly just me and you talking, with some of Robert. The stuff from Bugs isn't that relevant, and few of the other regulars seem to be joining in over the past few days. Not a ton of action there.

I'm not sure if people don't want to work on categorizing and flow charting, or if they just want to steer clear of any more arguments and drama. Also, FYI, I've posted similar comments about a template on the pages of a few others, including Jayron, Medeis, StuRat, Wnt, Robert, Jack of Oz, and Baseball Bugs (a vague list of the people who seem to be interesting in discussing these issues, and making a point to include people who seem to have different viewpoints on the issues). Interestingly enough, Medeis seems mostly on board, though I didn't write the exact same thing on that page, and didn't mention anything about allowing responses. Others seem cautiously positive so far, as you can see if you look at their talk pages.

Again, the explicit allowing of responses to questions seeking advice was not the main thrust. I was thinking more in line with the homework template that some people use. And I fully support removing any responses that give medical advice. If advice-seeking questions stay and get flagged, then many more readers and posters will start to get the idea that we don't give medical advice.

So, is this revision any more agreeable to you?

“

Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice. We do not give professional advice [links to disclaimer and guidelines, header, etc], Our goal here is to provide citations/links to informational references and WP articles. WP is the encyclopedia WP:ANYONE can edit, and we cannot make any guarantees (links to medical, general disclaimers, wikipedia is not reliable, etc.) If you need medical, legal, or other professional advice, please seek a licensed practitioner in your jurisdiction.

”

I don't mean to derail your ongoing thread, but it also doesn't look like it's going anywhere much at present. My thought was that this current version could be shaped into a relatively easy template to pass. That could help build good will and a spirit of reaching consensus, but maybe I'm too optimistic :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, if you've dropped the part about being allowed to post links/reliable-sources/whatever in response to a medical advice question? OK - but what are you now saying that we don't already do? We already have a choice of four templates that pretty much say what we need:

Post a template telling the user that he's screwed up -- we already have that covered -- see above.

DO NOT post any kind of reply - whether specific to this person or generic advice about what you happen to think might ail him. This is current policy.

Don't delete his question...not sure about that. We've flip-flopped on that a couple of times. It's a part of what I'm trying to formalize - but not *JUST* for medical/legal questions...those are just the tip if the iceberg.

Well, I *think* this is what we're already doing...or at least what we're supposed to be doing. I really hate your template because it's too wordy - and ambiguous. It says that our goal *IS* to give you advice...that's really mudding the waters...we just told him that we're not going to answer his question - and now we're saying that answering it is our goal. Then we go on to say that if we DO answer his question (which we won't, but it is our goal) then there are no guarantees.

That's just a mess...it's horrible! All we need is "Don't ask theses kinds of questions (here's why). We're not going to answer. Go see a doctor." - and the existing templates do exactly that.

As for what we delete and what we don't...my opinion is: Don't delete the question - it confuses people who can't find their question later - so they just re-ask it. Do use a standard template so we have a consistent, pre-agreed and official-sounding message. Do delete policy-violating answers...don't hat them - we don't want the OP to read them at all because they may be illegal. If someone needs to read them, they can use the edit history. Don't debate the matter on the customer-facing page - that makes us look inept - take it to the talk page.

When you remove the 'allowing people to post informational links' part of your proposal, what's left is what we already have - but don't always enforce.

My proposed template does not say our goal is to give advice. Did you read it? It also doesn't say to not reply after the template. I specifically said nothing about allowing or disallowing further responses. Also, our guidelines say do not say that we are not allowed to respond to questions seeking advice, they say we do not give medical advice. Have a read of the paragraph that starts "When answering a question that appears to be soliciting medical advice..."[2] -- which makes it perfectly clear that it is permissible to respond, provided that the response does not contain medical advice.

I was aware of some of those other similar templates, but not all, so thanks for pointing those out. However, they aren't being used, and people are deleting things instead. I thought a new template and new discussion would help bring more people on board to avoid deletions. Those deletions often cause problems, and that was what I thought we were both working to change.

What I was trying to do was to get people to agree on something simple, to build good will and community. My goal was to have a template that would both satisfy Medeis' desire to play cop/deleter, while satisfying other users' desire to not have their responses removed, or things needlessly deleted without consensus.

I thought it would be very difficult to get Medeis and Robert McClennon to agree to the same template, since one like to delete everything, and the other wants to delete nothing. At present, I have gotten agreement from them, and sooner than expected. I confess I didn't suspect that you would be so dismissive.

I came here hoping for some constructive criticism and productive discussion, and you've told me "No way in hell", "I hate your template" and other disparaging things with lots of angry looking *ASTERISKED CAPS*! I must say I'm a little surprised by that. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's pull this apart a bit:

My proposed template does not say our goal is to give advice. Did you read it? -- yes, of course! Here is what you said:

"Our goal here is to provide citations/links to informational references and WP articles."

As I explained earlier, we cannot provide citations and/or links without implying that those references are relevant to the OP's presumed medical condition...which in turn implies that we understand what that condition is...which means that we've formed a diagnosis. If we also link to articles like Tylanol - then we're implying a treatment.

It also doesn't say to not reply after the template. I specifically said nothing about allowing or disallowing further responses.

No, but that is the implication of "Our goal here". I know what you mean, but I think it's very confusing to the OP. Moreover, I don't see the relevance of telling the OP this at this time.

Also, our guidelines say do not say that we are not allowed to respond to questions seeking advice, they say we do not give medical advice.

Yes, indeed, we're allowed to respond with things like "We can't answer your question" and "The reason we can't answer your question is..." - this does not give us license to say "Look at this article about indigestion". We can't tell them all about the condition we suspect they have - that's diagnosis - and for 100% sure, that's not allowed.

Have a read of the paragraph that starts "When answering a question that appears to be soliciting medical advice..."[3] -- which makes it perfectly clear that it is permissible torespond, provided that the response does not contain medical advice.

Indeed. No medical advice whatever - neither express not implied...read a little further down the guideline an you'll see:

Any answer that provides medical advice, whether the question sought it or not, should be removed, or at least hatted,

I was aware of some of those other similar templates, but not all, so thanks for pointing those out. However, they aren't being used, and people are deleting things instead.

I absolutely agree. But the solution to people not using a template isn't to make another template that they also won't use. We need to fundamentally change the sloppy and inconsistent application of our guidelines by codifying the process - precisely and unambigously. IF (you see this kind of question) THEN (you do this and then that). IF (someone answers inappropriately) THEN (you do this other thing and then that). Clear rules, that are easy to regulate. If someone repeatedly hats something that shouldn't be hatted - or if they answer inappropriately - then we have a single clear thing that we can point to and say "YOU SCREWED UP - DON'T DO IT AGAIN!" - and if they do, then you can invoke the "disruptive editing" rule and have them topic banned.

The problem isn't "what is a medical question" - we already know that. We know what is allowed in terms of responses - what we're lacking is a clear set of rules that say when to hat, when to delete, when to ignore, when to use small font, when to... yeah... everything.

I thought a new template and new discussion would help bring more people on board to avoid deletions.

Why? That approach has failed miserably at least three, possibly four times in the past. I don't think you have the history with the RD to understand the depth to which this has already been debated. We know what's allowed and what's not. You're not bringing anything new to the table. The problem is not "WHAT" we're allowed to respond to - it's "HOW" and "WHEN" we respond to it.

Those deletions often cause problems, and that was what I thought we were both working to change.

Yes, but the approach you're taking here has been tried...many times before...it doesn't work (as evidenced by that pile of existing templates that are never used!). What I'm trying to do is both entirely new - and applies to ALL of our stupid problems - from someone posting an inane joke in response to a question that has not yet been answered, to how we handle trolls, to how we deal with medical questions *and* how we deal with answers to all of those things.

What I was trying to do was to get people to agree on something simple, to build good will and community.

We've done that before - we get an overwhelming consensus - but without a clear process - some people feel it's their job to pick their own set of rules.

My goal was to have a template that would both satisfy Medeis' desire to play cop/deleter, while satisfying other users' desire to not have their responses removed, or things needlessly deleted without consensus.

I understand your goals...mine are pretty much the same - but my ambition is to fix ALL of the problems. The people we're trying to rein in don't only delete medical stuff - they also attack questions that appear to be from trolls - answers that maybe are kinda construed as personal attacks...professional advice of any kind...you name it! I actually don't have problems when Medeis deletes medical advice stuff...it's the expanding cloud of other stuff that gets caught up in it.

What is needed is a clear set of rules that tells all of us what we are supposed to do. No other response would be acceptable - and because the rules are laid out step-by-step then you can point clearly, and unambiguously to where this person overstepped the mark. If a rogue editor doesn't follow the community-agreed, consensus-driven procedure - then after a couple of infractions, big trouble will ensue. If someone feels the need to play RD-cop and sanction people, then so long as they follow these hypothetical pre-agreed processes then we will thank them profoundly for their prompt actions rather than having gigantic bust-ups every single freaking time. Done right, everyone wins. In the event that we find a new kind of problem that we didn't write into the procedures - then we merely have to say "This is a CLASS C question" - and the procedure for dealing with it is already codified. That makes it much easier to get consensus on how to deal with new issues. We can even say things like "Every post that we think is coming from notorious troll User:XXXXXX will now be classified as CLASS E"...and everyone instantly knows what we're going to do. Clear rules that are easy to follow, easy to police, easy to provide a slap-on-the-wrist to people who get over-enthusiastic in applying sanctions.

I thought it would be very difficult to get Medeis and Robert McClennon to agree to the same template, since one like to delete everything, and the other wants to delete nothing. At present, I have gotten agreement from them, and sooner than expected. I confess I didn't suspect that you would be so dismissive.

I've read what they replied to you - and I think you're reading their responses FAR too optimistically. But, as I said, the problem isn't with templates - it's the rules that apply as you use them. We do already have consensus agreement on a comprehensive set of rules - we just don't have the procedures to apply them nailed down. Attempting to get new consensus for new rules is just disrupting the path to what we actually need to do.

I came here hoping for some constructive criticism and productive discussion, and you've told me "No way in hell", "I hate your template" and other disparaging things with lots of angry looking *ASTERISKED CAPS*! I must say I'm a little surprised by that.

Well, you came to my user page, asking for my reaction - and I'm just trying to tell you how I feel. I do truly hate your template. My constructive criticism is "Don't bother - it won't help". That's what I'm telling you - I'm not going to sugar-coat it - I think your first proposal sucked - I think your second proposal is irrelevant.

Also, I don't like that you're sneaking around talking to people individually, instead of having the courage to go to the WP:RD talk page and have a decent open discussion, allowing everyone to bounce ideas off of each other...that's not good. You are having conversations where A talks to B, A talks to C, A talks to D. At no point does B talks to C or C talk to D. Divide and conquer. Definitely not the Wiki Way. Not the kind of thing that enamours me of your approach!

But, in truth, I think you simply don't have the history here to know why what you're doing (a) won't help and (b) will derail a serious effort for very real reform.

You'll note that I tend to give stronger opinions to people who come to my talk page. You asked for my unvarnished personal opinion - you got it! Please don't complain when I tell you how I feel.

I agree with Steve's greater point that in most "medical-advice" situations, it would be very hard to provide links to sources without strongly implying a diagnosis or suggested treatment. If a question-asker describes a set of symptoms, and I provide a link to a disease (likely one of thousands) that can cause those symptoms, I have told the question asker what disease I think they have. I've made a diagnosis, and communicated it to the question asker. That's pretty much exactly what the guidelines say shouldn't happen.

I'm often strongly against stupid medial-advice deletions, but those tend to be questions that are not actually medical advice that someone has tried to force under that umbrella for who knows what reason. I'm talking about questions like "How do I clean a straight razor?" or "How does the average lifespan of a smoker compare to a non-smoker?" which will often be deleted as "medical", even though they don't ask for diagnosis or treatment. APL (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that particular situation is already covered by a really excellent "bright-line" rule - Kainaw's criterion. Basically, if you can fully answer the question without diagnosis, prognosis or treatment - then you're good to go. So both of your example questions are clearly acceptable and can and should be answered.

User:Kainaw's observation really clears up the whole classification situation. But it doesn't help with matters like: Should we remove the question? Should we also remove the answers? What about the title? Should we use a template? What should we do when someone violates these rules?

You know, I can give and take harsh judgment and criticism. Something I got a lot of training in as a scientist... I'm no wilting lily, but I did expect a little more civility. That's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned, but please don't accuse me of "sneaking around" - these are all public talk pages, and I specifically told the people involved that I was soliciting the opinions of others. It's not like I'm using private emails to form some secret cabal or something. Now that I've chatted with a few people individually, I'm very glad I didn't post this to the talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Removal of reasonable discussion from the Humanities Reference Desk.Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.

(Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think?)

Congratulations, Steve.

Actually, I have a confession to make. There was a time when I had formed a less than positive impression of you. But that time seems a very long time ago now, and these days I find myself in agreement with most things you post. A paragon of sensibility, if I may so so. That's me. You're OK too. Carry on. :) -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That fits well to my reason for coming here, and I don't even have to write a new headline. Thank you for the colorful metaphor "In a vast treeless desert without any aardvarks, do aardvarks climb trees?", used here. — Sebastian 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.